Mr CAMPBELL (11:08 AM) —The National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 is just another example of legislation this parliament enters into without any real concern for its end result. It was not entered into for any reason other than to promote the image of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) as a strong leader.

It is true that there was an incentive when a madman, Mr Bryant, allegedly killed all those people in Tasmania. I must say in passing that I cannot understand why the governments—the federal government and the state government of Tasmania—are opposing a royal commission into the events of Port Arthur. I think there are some unanswered questions there. With an event so significant we should have a full and thorough investigation. It is quite clear that Mr Bryant exercised an expertise with that gun that would have required a lot of training. I do not quite see how Mr Bryant acquired that expertise, but it would be a good thing if we could find out.

What happened when this sad event occurred was that the Prime Minister's advisers in Sydney said, `Prime Minister, this is your chance to be seen as a strong leader—and to hell with the consequences.' It has been very divisive across Australia, as the National Party is about to find out in the Queensland election.

If you look at the statistics since 1915 when records were first kept, the incidence of gun related violence in this country has been continually dropping; it is graphing downwards. Sadly, in the United States, it is going the other way at about two and a half times the rate of Australia. But, if you take out of contention just seven cities in the United States, the incidence of gun related violence in the United States is actually much lower than in Australia. Some of the states which have very low incidences actually allow people to keep concealable firearms. There are very low instances of assault.

In Western Australia—I do not know the figures for other states but I am sure they are comparable—there has been an almost doubling of armed violence since this legislation came in. Do the government consider that this was a success? I am sure they do not but then they do not care because that was never the intention of the legislation. Its intention was to fulfil a desperate need felt by the Liberal Party at the time. The Labor Party was happy to follow it because the Labor Party always supports this sort of legislation.

We are told what a great success the scheme was and that $500 million was raised with the Medicare levy. There is no doubt that far more lives would have been saved if that money had been put into the health system than is going to occur through this scheme. What has happened? People handed in guns that became illegal and then immediately went out and bought brand new guns that were expensive, adding to our current account deficit. So there has been a significant increase in the number of guns into Australia.

Why is it that, for all the time that governments of either persuasion have had the power under the Customs Act to prohibit the entry of high-powered military rifles—they have always had that power—they have never taken any action? The sporting shooters do not require those guns. They have made that clear; they have said there should have been a ban on them. Those guns are basically inaccurate and are designed for killing people at short ranges. There is certainly no great need for them. We had a special category for military weapons, a very tightly controlled category, and there was never any trouble from people within that category. But the government had the power to act and it did not do it.

I was talking to a gun dealer in Sydney who said, `Look, I didn't agree with that but everyone else is doing it, so business is business.' He told me that most of his customers are Vietnamese. If you check the records, very few AK47 guns and AK47 look-alike guns have been handed in by the Vietnamese community in Sydney. I will bet London to a brick on that. So those guns are still out there—the very guns that are probably the ones that cause most concern.

You had the stupidity of the Prime Minister refusing to allow 12 gauge semiautomatic shotguns, self-loading shotguns, which were choked to allow only two shots, to be used in competition. It is an absolute absurdity. The Prime Minister said in the House that it was his advice that the mechanism could be reversed. You can make a whole gun in a workshop. I was out in western New South Wales not so long ago and actually saw and handled automatic pistols made by farmers who were angry about what has happened. The initiative of the Australian people will not be thwarted by this sort of legislation. It is just a very costly absurdity which has divided society enormously.

This legislation extends the buyback provisions to the islands and territories surrounding Australia. The facts are these: home invasion is a fast growing crime. I think it is awful when you cannot feel secure in your own home. In France, home invasion is not heard of; in France, you are allowed to have a gun for defence in your own home. It is a policy of Australia First that we will continually seek to amend this legislation until the right of defence in your own home is conceded. It is, in my view, an inalienable right that should never have been taken from the people of Australia.

Now let us look at another absurdity. The government banned the sale of self-loading .22 calibre rifles. Most murders and most deaths were caused by a single shot. One of the largest causes of death was suicide in the rural sector. Banning the guns is not going to stop the suicides; fixing the economy is going to do much more for that. The reason people are driven to suicide is absolute desperation. So what does the government do? It bans guns. Have you ever heard of anything so absurd?

The truth is this. I have used a self-loading .22 to shoot rabbits commercially. If you are shooting rabbits commercially, it is probably the only calibre you can use and the only type of gun that will make your operation successful. I have also used a repeating rifle, a bolt action 243, to shoot kangaroos, and that gun is still legal. I know that I used to zero that gun at 200 yards and, if I could not put the whole magazine through a cigarette packet at 200 yards, I would readjust it. I could do far more damage with that gun than anyone could possibly do with a .22. That is the absurdity of this.

But we are a dealing with a Prime Minister and a bureaucracy that do not understand. I will warrant that three-quarters of the bureaucrats and all of the attorneys-general did not know the difference between an automatic rifle and a self-loading rifle. They called them all automatics. The difference of course is that an automatic will keep firing while you have your finger on the trigger.

We had this action taken as a feel-good action, as I said. It is interesting that, while the idea was very popular in Sydney, its popularity diminished as you got further from Sydney. I believe that, had our state premiers had the nerve to demand a constitutional referendum, this legislation would not have passed. It would have passed in New South Wales because of the all-pervading effect of Sydney, but it certainly would not have passed in Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland and probably Victoria. But those premiers, in my view, sold out by not forcing it to a referendum so that the people of Australia could decide.

One of the important reasons why we need to introduce into Australia the concept of a citizen initiated referendum is so the people can have a say and so that they are not continually subjected to decisions made by a government which they have no opportunity to oppose because both parties have the same policy. Bipartisan politics basically destroyed any concept of democracy in Australia, and it must be replaced by CIR.

If you look at the situation in Australia, there was a great clamour from the Labor Party to do away with the appeals to Privy Council. What happened? When there were appeals to Privy Council, our High Court was arguably the best appellate court in the world and I think it had a great record. But within a very short time after those appeals to Privy Council had been abolished, our High Court had become a bunch of social engineers. That is not the job of the High Court. It is a destructive process of government when the High Court is allowed to go down that way. It has gone down that path because of the vacuum left by the political parties.

What I say is that citizen initiated referenda have the ability to reapply the intellectual vigour that was necessary to bring the High Court under control. It will be effective not only against politicians but against the judges and the bureaucrats. It is something we must have. I believe it will not often be used and it will be used decreasingly as these people realise the power of the people. I have faith in the people of Australia. I believe they can be trusted. It is quite clear from legislation like this that neither the government nor the opposition believe in the people of Australia.

This legislation is indicative of a lot of stuff that comes into this parliament. It does no good, it is probably counterproductive and it costs. We have seen this cost. The government is admitting to this cost. The cost is significant. Had that money been put into new roads, it would have saved more lives. Had it been put into research, it could have saved more lives but, no, that was never the consideration. The concern was always to portray the Prime Minister as a great leader.

When the present Prime Minister acceded to his position, I had faith in him. This was the first act that weakened that faith. Since then, I have seen successive acts from the Prime Minister which make me believe he is no longer worthy of support. It is about time this parliament got back to really representing the will and the feelings of the people of Australia. That cannot happen while we have legislation like this coming into the House, legislation which is supported by both parties and where there is no option for the alternative view to be heard.

I know that I am wasting my time. This legislation is going to go through, but there will be a reckoning and I believe that reckoning will come in Queensland very shortly, where the people have already said, `We have had enough of this draconian government.' Believe me, if Mr Beattie is elected to government, it will not be because the people have faith in him; it will simply be because they have no alternative. The people of Australia are going to resort to putting governments in and out in quick succession and that is going to lead to the instability and possibly the anarchy that you have seen happening in Italy. I will not be supporting this legislation, but then it will not need my support, unfortunately, to pass.